Watch carefully, as this proves beyond doubt, man did not land on the moon.

...

Even the images are flawed. If the camera and tripod were unmanned, (unless again, the poor unknown cameraman who took the footage was left behind on the moon!) how is the camera able to zoom and tilt, and follow the moving LEM with such precision – especially when no such equipment was carried on board?

This footage shows the Apollo 17 Lunar Module ascent stage lifting off from the Moon. First of all, the camera was not mounted on a tripod - instead, it was mounted on the astronaut's rover, which was left behind on the moon. The camera was remotely operated from Earth by a fellow called Ed Fendell (the astronauts affectionately called him "Captain Video"!).

The Clavius website (www.clavius.org) agrees with me on this point:

Ed Fendell, the camera operator at Mission Control, by remote conrol. It's fairly common knowledge that the television cameras on Apollos 15, 16, and 17 were operated by remote control from Houston. And the video footage from those missions is rife with pans, tilts, and zooms with both astronauts away from the camera (indeed, in the frame).

Hey guys - I am NOT a fanatic. Nor am I an expert. These are questions in my own mind. NOT some conspiracy theory. Doubting something until it can be proven otherwise does not make one unintelligent, quite the reverse actually.

Infact, that is the best way to learn. Trial and error. The guitarist who never played a bum note - never played a guitar! I accept I could be wrong, and if I am - it would not blow my world apart.

The thing is you really need to read up on satellite TV broadcasts.

The point is not the signal that has been broadcast around the globe, but the signal from the moon to the earth in the first place.

REMEMBER: We are dealing with 1969 analogue transmissions - NOT modern digital broadcasts.

We need to stay on the moon, and see how it was possible to do this with 1969 equipment (not 2006 equipment). Not blinding with science, but physically how was it done.

If you are familar with both the cameras and the technology of the day, you will see this is impossible.

Good! This is not something I have studied in great depth and cling my sanity to! It is just something which has fascinated me for some time. How it was technically possible. That does not make me some kind of nut.

But can anyone answer the make and model of the video camera? As we know that it cannot be a cartridge (it could not have been a film) or umbilical.

That is the first question which needs to be answered - ignore all the other gobbledegook.

This footage shows the Apollo 17 Lunar Module ascent stage lifting off from the Moon.

This is what I wondered. The clip is not explicit enough, and someone with my rudimentary knowledge could not tell what moon landing it refered to. I knew that once that was pointed out, an answer would quickly follow.

The lack of any 'flame' from the base of the ascent stage is due to the hypergolic propellants used, although the plume is visible briefly just after ignition. The multi-colour 'confetti' effect is due to the rotating colour wheel inside the camera, which meant that colour TV could be return from the moon using a single vidicon tube, therefore reducing the weight of the unit significantly.

And here is the equivalent shot from Apollo 16. Because of the transmission delay, Fendell had to pan the camera upwards about 3 seconds before the planned time of engine ignition. Unfortunately, in this instance, he got his timing off slightly, and the LM moved out of the field of view:

1: What was the 'movie' camera used to take the film in the first place? We know that it could not be either a cartridge (it could not have been a film) or umbilical type. (See previous thread). So what exactly was it?

Color wheel? Yes! Within the camera, a wheel with red, green and blue filter segments was rotating in front of the sensor tube at exactly one third the field rate, to expose the sensor to red, then green, and then blue light in successive fields. Here on Earth, a scan converter would store these fields on analog disk drives, and then generate NTSC video.

Why use that old system? It allowed a simple and reliable camera design. At the time, CCD's were hardly more than laboratory curios and the prospect of shrinking a three-tube, broadcast quality camera to shoebox size and keeping it in registration through the trans-lunar voyage was unthinkable. The field sequential system offered excellent color quality and keeping the filter wheel rotating in the vacuum of space was the only risky part.

A sensor tube under development at RCA at the time, known as a Silicon Intensifier Target tube, had just the characteristics NASA needed for the mission. It was highly sensitive, so it could see into deeply shadowed areas, yet it could withstand direct exposure to the sun without being damaged. It had low lag, or image carryover from field to field, and its sensitivity was electrically controllable over a 1000 to 1 range.

Great, Ian!! Thanks for this. I find it so strange we have to spend time proving such things. It's like proving that 2 + 2 is 4...But since hoaxes seem to be fashonable....It's great someone knowledgeable can explain the truth. Sometimes people presenting hoaxes can be so convincing that it is easy to fall in their traps...Strange though how some people will use so much of their time to make up such stories.....Your analysis in the other thread is very enlightening.

Now if you want a conspiracy theory how about this... Two computers have been stolen from the police officers investigating Princess Diana's death, the police claim nothing sensitive was on the machines, however two seperate burglers took the machines and some cash!

Hmmmmm. cover up from on high? or coincidence!

"It is better to sit in silence and have people think you're a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt"

Great, Ian!! Thanks for this. I find it so strange we have to spend time proving such things. It's like proving that 2 + 2 is 4...

it's better than all those Q+PR should they / shouldn't they discussions... ;) I personally don't really care whether they landed there or not. I am / was sceptical and am not ashamed of that. I can find even on this board people more ignorant than me- there are more obvious things than this moon landing people can't grasp... and I don't mind reading about it. At the end of the day- I couldn't really care less whethet someone did land on th emoon or not. Therefore I don't have a problem with discussion like that. It's not going to harm anybody, that's for sure. And... well, ;let's read few threads from the top in other sections, shall we? "Why didn't Freddie ever get a double chin" "You Take My Breath Away: it isn't about a love for a person" "Brian and Roger are ruining PAUL RODGERS" "Paul Weller slags off Freddie Mercury" "Want to see Dackys balls?" I dunno- for me proving that 2+2 isn't such a bad thread to read afterall... Especially as I am at work and EXTREMELY bored...